Mechanistic Biology 223 



we are studying ourselves, and therefore, in a certain sense, the 

 scientific method has to grapple with the problem of its own 

 existence. Apart from hylozoist speculation, it will be admitted 

 that the main distinguishing characteristic between organic and 

 inorganic matter is that the former, at any rate in its higher forms, 

 possesses mind. Consequently the scientific method, which is 

 after all itself a mental product, is not competent to give us final 

 descriptions of Life, without calling to its aid the other interpreta- 

 tive mental products, such as philosophy. 



Yet in the past it has been assumed that the final answer 

 to the problem of life can perfectly well be expected in the 

 language of biology alone. The fundamental postulate of this 

 paper is that scientific methods, even if criticised by philosophy, 

 are not in themselves adequate to answer that problem. It 

 accordingly follows that there is much work to be done by anyone 

 who is prepared to think in terms of biology and philosophy 

 with a view to the synthesis of a satisfactory working synoptic 

 outlook. 



The drift of thought from generation to generation is always 

 interesting. The book of which this essay forms part is registering 

 the change in outlook which exists between the Victorian era and 

 to-day, and one of the most interesting passages is that from 

 Zoology to Biochemistry in their influence upon Philosophy and 

 Religion. In the last century it was the zoological conceptions 

 which seemed of paramount importance. Preceded by Lamarck, 

 Cuvier, and Buffon, the zoologists of the early part of the nineteenth 

 century were able to point to a world in which a vast number of 

 species and genera had been classified according to their form, and 

 constituted a static system. Upon this apparently secure basis the 

 evolutionists built up their theory and buttressed it with the evidence 

 from palaeontology and other fields. The opposition which the 

 supporters of the evolution theory met with from the theologians 

 and philosophers did it nothing but good, except in so far as there 

 w&s a retardation in the appraisement of the theory at its true 

 value. The more misunderstanding there was over the assumed 

 implications of the theory, the more difficult it was to know exactly 

 how it would eventually fit into the general body of knowledge. 

 However, when the excitement died down, it was possible to see 

 more clearly. Modifications in the original theory as set forth by 

 Darwin were introduced and the tide of interest turned in another 



